CIR v. TMX Sales.docx

8/14/2019 CIR v. TMX Sales.docx

1/7

G.R. No. 83736 January 15, 1992

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner ,

vs.

TMX SALES, INC. and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

F.R. Quiogue for private respondent.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J .:

In a case involving corporate quarterly income tax, does the two-year prescriptive period to claim arefund of erroneously collected tax provided for in Section 292 (now Section 230) of the NationalInternal Revenue Code commence to run from the date the quarterly income tax was paid, ascontended by the petitioner, or from the date of filing of the Final Adjustment Return (final payment),as claimed by the private respondent?

Section 292 (now Section 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code provides:

Sec. 292. Recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected . No suit or proceedingshall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue taxhereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or ofany penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum allegedto have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refundor credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; but suchsuit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum hasbeen paid under protest or duress.

In any case no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of twoyears from the date of payment of that tax or penalty regardless of any superveningcause that may arise after payment : . . . (Emphasis supplied)

The facts of this case are uncontroverted.

Private respondent TMX Sales, Inc., a domestic corporation, filed its quarterly income tax return forthe first quarter of 1981, declaring an income of P571,174.31, and consequently paying an incometax thereon of P247,010.00 on May 15, 1981. During the subsequent quarters, however, TMX Sales,Inc. suffered losses so that when it filed on April 15, 1982 its Annual Income Tax Return for the yearended December 31, 1981, it declared a gross income of P904,122.00 and total deductions of

P7,060,647.00, or a net loss of P6,156,525.00 (CTA Decision, pp. 1-2; Rollo , pp. 45-46).

Thereafter, on July 9, 1982, TMX Sales, Inc. thru its external auditor, SGV & Co. filed with the Appellate Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue a claim for refund in the amount ofP247,010.00 representing overpaid income tax. ( Rollo , p. 30)

This claim was not acted upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On March 14, 1984, TMXSales, Inc. filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals against the Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, praying that the petitioner, as private respondent therein, be ordered to refund to


2/7

TMX Sales, Inc. the amount of P247,010.00, representing overpaid income tax for the taxable yearended December 31, 1981.

In his answer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue averred that "granting, without admitting, theamount in question is refundable, the petitioner (TMX Sales, Inc.) is already barred from claiming thesame considering that more than two (2) years had already elapsed between the payment (May 15,

1981) and the filing of the claim in Court (March 14, 1984). (Sections 292 and 295 of the Tax Codeof 1977, as amended)."

On April 29, 1988, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition of TMX Sales,Inc. and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the amount claimed.

The Tax Court, in granting the petition, viewed the quarterly income tax paid as a portion orinstallment of the total annual income tax due. Said the Tax Court in its assailed decision:

xxx xxx xxx

When a tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive period of two years provided in

Section 306 (now Section 292) of the Revenue Code should be counted from thedate of the final payment or last installment. . . . This rule proceeds from the theorythat in contemplation of tax laws, there is no payment until the whole or entire taxliability is completely paid. Thus, a payment of a part or portion thereof, cannotoperate to start the commencement of the statute of limitations. In this regard theword "tax" or words "the tax" in statutory provisions comparable to section 306 of ourRevenue Code have been uniformly held to refer to the entire tax and not a portionthereof (Clark v. U.S., 69 F. 2d 748; A.S. Kriedner Co. v. U.S., 30 F Supp. 274; Hillsv. U.S., 50 F 2d 302, 55 F 2d 1001), and the vocable "payment of tax" within statutesrequiring refund claim, refer to the date when all the tax was paid, not when a portionwas paid (Braun v. U.S., 8 F supp. 860, 863; Collector of Internal Revenue v. Prieto,2 SCRA 1007; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Palanca, 18 SCRA 496).

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is now before this Court seeking a reversal of theabove decision. Thru the Solicitor General, he contends that the basis in computing the two-yearperiod of prescription provided for in Section 292 (now Section 230) of the Tax Code, should be May15, 1981, the date when the quarterly income tax was paid and not April 15, 1982, when the Final

Adjustment Return for the year ended December 31, 1981 was filed.

He cites the case of Pacific Procon Limited v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. 68013,November 12, 1984) involving a similar set of facts, wherein this Court in a minute resolutionaffirmed the Court of Appeals' decision denying the claim for refund of the petitioner therein for beingbarred by prescription.

A re-examination of the aforesaid minute resolution of the Court in the Pacific Procon case iswarranted under the circumstances to lay down a categorical pronouncement on the question as towhen the two-year prescriptive period in cases of quarterly corporate income tax commences to run.

A full-blown decision in this regard is rendered more imperative in the light of the reversal by theCourt of Tax Appeals in the instant case of its previous ruling in the Pacific Procon case.

Section 292 (now Section 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code should be interpreted inrelation to the other provisions of the Tax Code in order to give effect to legislative intent and toavoid an application of the law which may lead to inconvenience and absurdity. In the caseof People vs . Rivera (59 Phil 236 [1933]), this Court stated that statutes should receive a sensible


3/7

construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or anabsurd conclusion. INTERPRETATIO TALIS IN AMBIGUIS SEMPER FRIENDA EST, UTEVITATUR INCONVENIENS ET ABSURDUM . Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as willavoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. Furthermore, courts must give effect to thegeneral legislative intent that can be discovered from or is unraveled by the four corners of thestatute, and in order to discover said intent, the whole statute, and not only a particular provision

thereof, should be considered. (Manila Lodge No. 761, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 73 SCRA162 [1976]) Every section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by reference toeach other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature. The intention of thelegislator must be ascertained from the whole text of the law and every part of the act is to be takeninto view. (Chartered Bank v. Imperial, 48 Phil. 931 [1921]; Lopez v. El Hogar Filipino, 47 Phil. 249,cited in Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. City of Cebu, 13 SCRA 449 [1965]).

Thus, in resolving the instant case, it is necessary that we consider not only Section 292 (nowSection 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code but also the other provisions of the Tax Code,particularly Sections 84, 85 (now both incorporated as Section 68), Section 86 (now Section 70) andSection 87 (now Section 69) on Quarterly Corporate Income Tax Payment and Section 321 (nowSection 232) on keeping of books of accounts. All these provisions of the Tax Code should beharmonized with each other.

Section 292 (now Section 230) provides a two-year prescriptive period to file a suit for a refund of atax erroneously or illegally paid, counted from the tile the tax was paid. But a literal application of thisprovision in the case at bar which involves quarterly income tax payments may lead to absurdity andinconvenience.

Section 85 (now Section 68) provides for the method of computing corporate quarterly income taxwhich is on a cumulative basis, to wit:

Sec. 85. Method of computing corporate quarterly income tax . Every corporationshall file in duplicate a quarterly summary declaration of its gross income anddeductions on a cumulative basis for the preceding quarter or quarters upon whichthe income tax, as provided in Title II of this Code shall be levied, collected andpaid. The tax so computed shall be decreased by the amount of tax previously paidor assessed during the preceding quarters and shall be paid not later than sixty (60)days from the close of each of the first three (3) quarters of the taxable year, whethercalendar or fiscal year. (Emphasis supplied)

while Section 87 (now Section 69) requires the filing of an adjustment returns and final payment ofincome tax, thus:

Sec. 87. Filing of adjustment returns final payment of income tax . On or before thefifteenth day of April or on or before the fifteenth day of the fourth month following theclose of the fiscal year, every taxpayer covered by this Chapter shall file an

Adjustment Return covering the total net taxable income of the preceding calendar orfiscal year and if the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during that year is notequal to the tax due on the entire net taxable income of that year the corporationshall either (a) pay the excess tax still due or (b) be refunded the excess amount paidas the case may be . . . . (Emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, the amount of P247,010.00 claimed by private respondent TMX Sales, Inc. basedon its Adjustment Return required in Section 87 (now Section 69), is equivalent to the tax paid duringthe first quarter. A literal application of Section 292 (now Section 230) would thus pose no problem


4/7

as the two-year prescriptive period reckoned from the time the quarterly income tax was paid can beeasily determined. However, if the quarter in which the overpayment is made, cannot beascertained, then a literal application of Section 292 (Section 230) would lead to absurdity andinconvenience.

The following application of Section 85 (now Section 68) clearly illustrates this point:

FIRST QUARTER:

Gross Income 100,000.00

Less: Deductions 50,000.00

Net Taxable Income 50,000.00

=========

Tax Due & Paid [Sec. 24 NIRC (25%)] 12,500.00

=========

SECOND QUARTER:

Gross Income 1st Quarter 100,000.00

2nd Quarter 50,000.00 150,000.00

Less: Deductions 1st Quarter 50,000.00

2nd Quarter 75,000.00 125,000.00


=========

Tax Due Thereon 6,250.00

Less: Tax Paid 1st Quarter 12,500.00

Creditable Income Tax (6,250.00)


5/7

THIRD QUARTER:


2nd Quarter 50,000.00

3rd Quarter 100,000.00 250,000.00



3rd Quarter 25,000.00 150,000.00

100,000.00

=========




=========

FOURTH QUARTER: (Adjustment Return required in Sec. 87)



3rd Quarter 100,000.00

4th Quarter 75,000.00 325,000.00



3rd Quarter 25,000.00

4th Quarter 100,000.00 250,000.00


6/7


=========



2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter 12,500.00 25,000.00

Creditable Income Tax (to be REFUNDED) (6,250.00)

=========

Based on the above hypothetical data appearing in the Final Adjustment Return, the taxpayer isentitled under Section 87 (now Section 69) of the Tax Code to a refund of P6,250.00. If Section 292(now Section 230) is literally applied, what then is the reckoning date in computing the two-yearprescriptive period? Will it be the 1st quarter when the taxpayer paid P12,500.00 or the 3rd quarterwhen the taxpayer also paid P12,500.00? Obviously, the most reasonable and logical application ofthe law would be to compute the two-year prescriptive period at the time of filing the Final

Adjustment Return or the Annual Income Tax Return, when it can be finally ascertained if thetaxpayer has still to pay additional income tax or if he is entitled to a refund of overpaid income tax.

Furthermore, Section 321 (now Section 232) of the National Internal Revenue Code requires that thebooks of accounts of companies or persons with gross quarterly sales or earnings exceeding TwentyFive Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) be audited and examined yearly by an independent CertifiedPublic Accountant and their income tax returns be accompanied by certified balance sheets, profitand loss statements, schedules listing income producing properties and the corresponding incomestherefrom and other related statements.

It is generally recognized that before an accountant can make a certification on the financialstatements or render an auditor's opinion, an audit of the books of accounts has to be conducted inaccordance with generally accepted auditing standards.

Since the audit, as required by Section 321 (now Section 232) of the Tax Code is to be conductedyearly, then it is the Final Adjustment Return, where the figures of the gross receipts and deductions

have been audited and adjusted, that is truly reflective of the results of the operations of a businessenterprise. Thus, it is only when the Adjustment Return covering the whole year is filed that thetaxpayer would know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted andaudited figures.

Therefore, the filing of quarterly income tax returns required in Section 85 (now Section 68) andimplemented per BIR Form 1702-Q and payment of quarterly income tax should only be consideredmere installments of the annual tax due. These quarterly tax payments which are computed basedon the cumulative figures of gross receipts and deductions in order to arrive at a net taxable income,


7/7

should be treated as advances or portions of the annual income tax due, to be adjusted at the end ofthe calendar or fiscal year. This is reinforced by Section 87 (now Section 69) which provides for thefiling of adjustment returns and final payment of income tax. Consequently, the two-year prescriptiveperiod provided in Section 292 (now Section 230) of the Tax Code should be computed from thetime of filing the Adjustment Return or Annual Income Tax Return and final payment of income tax.

In the case of Collector of Internal Revenue v . Antonio Prieto (2 SCRA 1007 [1961]), this Court heldthat when a tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive period of two years provided in Section 306(Section 292) of the National internal Revenue Code should be counted from the date of the finalpayment. This ruling is reiterated in Commission of Internal Revenue v . Carlos Palanca (18 SCRA496 [1966]), wherein this Court stated that where the tax account was paid on installment, thecomputation of the two-year prescriptive period under Section 306 (Section 292) of the Tax Code,should be from the date of the last installment.

In the instant case, TMX Sales, Inc. filed a suit for a refund on March 14, 1984. Since the two-yearprescriptive period should be counted from the filing of the Adjustment Return on April 15, 1982,TMX Sales, Inc. is not yet barred by prescription.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of theCourt of Tax Appeals dated April 29, 1988 is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Feliciano and Nocon, JJ., took no part.

Documents

CIR v. TMX Sales.docx